The Pine Wood Nematode: a personal view

The first report of the disease (“pine wilt disease”) associated with the pinewood nematode, goes back to 1905, when Yano reported an unusual decline of pines from Nagasaki. For a long time thereafter, the cause of he disease was sought, but without success. Because of the large number of insect species that were usually seen around and on infected trees, it had always been assumed that the causal agent would prove to be one of these. However, in 1971, Kiyohara and Tokushike found a nematode of the genus Bursaphelenchus in infected trees. The nematode found was multiplied on fungal culture, inoculated into healthy trees and then re-isolated from the resulting wilted trees. The subsequent published reports were impressive: this Bursaphelenchus species could kill fully-grown trees within a few months in the warmer areas of Japan, and could destroy complete forests of susceptible pine species within a few years. Pinus densiflora, P. thunbergii und P. luchuensis were particularly affected. In 1972, Mamiya and Kiyohara described the new species of nematode extracted from the wood of diseased pines; it was a named Bursaphelenchus lignicolus. Since 1975, the species has spread to the north of Japan, with the exception of the most northerly prefectures. In 1977, the loss of wood in the west of the country reached 80%. Probably as a result of unusually high summer temperatures and reduced rainfall in the years 1978 and 1979, the losses were more than 2 million m3 per year. From the beginning, B. lignicolus was always considered by Japanese scientists to be an exotic pest. But where did it come from? That this nematode could also cause damage in the USA became clear in 1979 when B. lignicolus was isolated in great numbers from wood of a 39 year-old pine tree (Pinus nigra) in Missouri which had suddenly died after the colour of its needles changed to a reddish-brown colour (Dropkin und Foudin, 2 1979). In 1981, B. lignicolus was synonymised by Nickle et al. with B. xylophilus which had been found for the first time in the USA as far back as 1929, and reported by Steiner and Buhrer in 1934. It had originally been named Aphelenchoides xylophilus, the wood-inhabiting Aphelenchoides but was recognised by Nickle, in 1970,to belong in the genus Bursaphelenchus. Its common name in the USA was the "pine wood nematode" (PWN. After its detection in Missouri, it became known that B. xylophilus was widespread throughout the USA and Canada. It occurred there on native species of conifers where, as a rule, it did not show the symptoms of pine wilt disease unless susceptible species were stressed eg., by high temperature. This fact was an illuminating piece of evidence that North America could be the homeland of PWN. Dwinell (1993) later reported the presence of B. xylophilus in Mexico. The main vector of the PWN in Japan was shown to be the long-horned beetle Monochamus alternatus, belonging to the family Cerambycidae. This beetle lays its eggs in dead or dying trees where the developing larvae then feed in the cambium layer. It was already known in Japan in the 19th century but in the 1930s, it was said to be present in most areas of Japan, but was generally uncommon. However, with the spread of the pine wilt disease, and the resulting increase of weakened trees that could act as breeding sites for beetles, the populations of Monochamus spp. increased significantly In North America, other Monochamus species transmit PWN, and the main vector is M. carolinensis. In Japan, there are also other, less efficient vectors in the genus Monochamus. Possibly, all Monochamus species that breed in conifers can transmit the PWN. The occasional transmission by less efficient species of Monochamus or by some of the many other beetle genera in the bark or wood is of little significance. In Europe, M. galloprovincialis and M. sutor transmits the closely related species B. mucronatus. Some speculate that these two insect species are “standing by” and waiting for the arrival of B. xylophilus. In 1982, the nematode was detected and China. It was first found in dead pines near the Zhongshan Monument of Nanjing (CHENG et. al. 1983); 265 trees were then killed by pine wilt disease. Despite great efforts at eradication in China, the nematode spread further and pine wilt disease has been 3 reported from parts of the provinces of Jiangsu, Anhui, Guangdong, Shandong, Zhejiang and Hubei (YANG, 2003). In 1986, the spread of the PWN to Taiwan was discovered and in 1989, the nematode was reported to be present in the Republic of Korea where it had first been detected in Pinus thunbergii and P. densiflora. It was though to have been introduced with packing material from Japan. PWN was advancing. In 1984, B. xylophilus was found in wood chips imported into Finland from the USA and Canada, and this was the impetus to establish phytosanitary measures to prevent any possible spread into Europe. Finland prohibited the import of coniferous wood chips from these sources, and the other Nordic countries soon followed suit. EPPO (the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) made a recommendation to its member countries in 1986 to refuse wood imports from infested countries. With its Directive of 1989 (77/93 EEC), the European Community (later called the European Union or EU) recognised the potential danger of B. xylophilus for European forests and imposed restrictions on imports into the Europe. PWN was placed on the quarantine list of the EU and also of other European countries. Later, in 1991, a dispensation was allowed by the Commission of the EU(92/13 EEC) for coniferous wood from North America provided that certain specified requirements were fulfilled that would prevent introduction.

Sensible use of primary energy in organic greenhouse production.

This document addresses the direct and indirect use of energy in European organic greenhouse horticulture (OGH) with the aim of reviewing available means for making it more environmental friendly and identifying knowledge gaps that should be addressed to attain this aim. The first observation is that there is no common regulation for energy use in OGH, which is not unexpected, since the need for climatisation is not uniformly distributed in the EU (and outside). Accordingly, the EU directive on organic agriculture does not set limitations on the use of energy, but rather promotes the responsible use of energy and of natural resources. The restrictions and rules of most private standards are slightly more stringent. Some standards have specific restrictions on the amount and sources of energy and/or on the seasonal use of energy for heating. Some standards also address processes that may affect (in)direct energy use, such as cultivation methods, mulching, lighting and growing media or substrates. However, most private standards have no or little restrictions or regulations on energy use. Accordingly, it should not surprise that very little quantitative information is available about energy use in OGH. In the present document we have filled the gaps with data with estimates drawn on energy use in conventional greenhouses. With respect to ongoing research, whereas many of the present research results about energy use and saving in conventional greenhouses are relevant (and also applied) in OGH, little research is devoted to address the energy use that is peculiar to OGH, particularly energy use for humidity control. In short, there are still a lot of knowledge gaps to improve quality and to lower energy use in organic greenhouses. The purpose of this document is a summary of present relevant knowledge about energy use and energy saving and of the perspective for improvement. In particular, the goal is to make an overview on the methods and technologies which can be used to reduce the energy use in OGH. We start from the assumption that methods and technologies that are used for reducing direct and indirect energy in conventional greenhouses can also be applied in organic greenhouses. Research on reducing energy use in conventional greenhouses is also more widely available because the area of conventional greenhouse horticulture is much larger than the area of OGH. When implementing these methods and techniques we should take into account the specific characteristics of organic agriculture like soil-based cultivation, use of organic fertilizers and the limited use of crop protection products. This document is organised as follows: first we report the results of a survey about energy use and relevant standards in the countries participating to the COST action (chapter 1); then we review the energy use for climatisation: heating (chapter 2) and humidity (chapter 3). In chapter 4 we review the available design and management means that would either reduce energy use and/or increase energy use efficiency by increasing productivity of OGH. In chapter 5 we present a short summary of existing information on indirect energy use, that is the energy required to manufacture production means (greenhouse structure and cover, fertilisers, equipment etc.) and for crop protection, particularly steaming, and briefly discuss possible savings. Finally (chapter 6) we review briefly the potential for application of renewable energy sources in OGH.